request for application · request for application . school improvement 1003(a) grant. separate...

NDE Request for Application: 1003(a) Grant

Page | 1

REQUEST FOR APPLICATION

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 1003(a) GRANT SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR A SUBGRANT UNDER THE

EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT OF 2015

Application Due: April 21, 2017

Funding Period:

July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018

Applications: The application and related documents will be uploaded as a PDF in ePAGE and the

certification, assurances and budget will be entered directly into ePAGE.

ePAGE questions: Allyson Kellogg [email protected]

775-687-9148

Issued By: Nevada Department of Education (NDE) Office of Student and School Supports

Please address questions to: Seng-Dao Yang Keo, Director, Office of Student and School Supports

[email protected] 775-687-9145

Restrictions/Conditions: This grant application process is open to all Nevada schools and charter schools that

appear on the eligible schools list in Appendix A.

Anticipated award amount of $8 million open to 84 schools

mailto:[email protected]



Page | 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS APPLICATION GUIDANCE ................................................................................................................. 3

I. Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 3

II. Instructions & Requirements ............................................................................................................ 3

A. Eligible Applicants ......................................................................................................................... 3

B. Funding Priorities .......................................................................................................................... 4

C. ESSA EVIDENCE-BASED CRITERIA .................................................................................................. 6

D. 2017-2018 Timeline for 1003(a) Process ...................................................................................... 7

E. Application Preparation ................................................................................................................ 8

F. Formatting Requirements ............................................................................................................. 8

G. Additional Support ........................................................................................................................ 8

APPLICATION ......................................................................................................................................... 9

Section I: Application Narrative ................................................................................................................ 9

Section II: Budget, Certification & Assurances ....................................................................................... 11

PART A: BUDGET ................................................................................................................................ 11

PART B: CERTIFICATION ..................................................................................................................... 11

PART C: ASSURANCES ......................................................................................................................... 11

APPLICATION EVALUATIONS ....................................................................................................... 12

A. Application Review Process ........................................................................................................ 12

B. SCORING GUIDE .......................................................................................................................... 13

C. Rubric .......................................................................................................................................... 15

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ 20

Appendix A .......................................................................................................................................... 21

Appendix B .......................................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix C .......................................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix D .......................................................................................................................................... 27


Page | 3

APPLICATION GUIDANCE

I. Overview On December 10, 2015, President Barack Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, P.L. 114-95) into law. ESSA amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Federal funds for school improvement are provided via the authority of ESEA. ESSA builds on ESEA’s legacy as a civil rights law and seeks to ensure that every child, regardless of race, income, background, or where they live, has the opportunity to obtain a high-quality education. ESSA made significant changes to ESEA and Title I for the first time since the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Section 1003(a) of Title I requires NDE to reserve seven percent of Title I, Part A funding for school improvement purposes, and section 1003(f) outlines priorities:

(f) Priority - The State Education Agencies (SEA) will give priority to local educational agencies that: 1) Serve high numbers, or a high percentage of, elementary schools and secondary schools

implementing plans under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1111(d); 2) Demonstrate the greatest need for such funds, as determined by the State; and 3) Demonstrate the strongest commitment to using funds to enable the lowest-performing

schools to improve student achievement and student outcomes. -- 20 U.S.C. § 6303 (2015)

The Department will also prioritize school applications that align to Nevada’s Strategic Plan and ESSA Plan’s big bets around school leadership development, data informed decision-making, and support for low performing schools. These Plans were developed in collaboration with stakeholders from across the state.

II. Instructions & Requirements

A. Eligible Applicants

Section 1003 of ESSA requires that the SEA allocate funds to local education agencies (LEAs) to support schools identified as underperforming. Nevada has identified the following categories of schools as eligible for 1003(a) funds for the 2017-2018 school year: • Priority • Focus • One-Star

• High schools with a graduation rate below 67%

• Rising Star schools

Section 1111(d) of ESSA (noted above) created requirements for designating both Comprehensive Support and Improvement schools and Targeted Support and Improvement schools, and the ESSA criteria for school selection will go into effect for the 2018-2019 application rounds. NDE will release these lists in September 2017.

https://www2.ed.gov/documents/essa-act-of-1965.pdf

https://www2.ed.gov/documents/essa-act-of-1965.pdf


Page | 4

The complete list of underperforming schools eligible for 1003(a) funding during the 2017-2018 school year is located in Appendix A. Schools receiving School Improvement Grant (SIG) 1003(g) funding are not eligible to receive 1003(a) funding. All Districts with identified underperforming schools are eligible applicants for 1003(a) school improvement funds. Through the competitive application process, NDE will determine which schools have the greatest need, strongest commitment, and clear alignment to NDE priorities. NDE will consider other state and federal supplemental funding sources allocated to schools in determining greatest need for 1003(a) funds.

B. Funding Priorities

The Department intends to fund plans that align with the priorities outlined in Nevada’s Strategic Plan and ESSA Plans, in order to rapidly improve underperforming schools. The goal is to provide planning and funding support to place all one and two star schools on a path to three stars in three years, as well as to involve families as partners in improvement.

Strategies: NDE’s focus on Nevada’s lowest-performing schools includes prioritizing two key strategies to improve student achievement: School Leadership Development

1. Data Driven Decision-Making

School Leadership Development Data Driven Decision-Making • Provide high-quality professional

development to support school wide leadership

• Drive significant impact on student success with qualified principals who set school culture and high expectations

• Build the capacity of the education system through networks, collaboration and knowledge sharing

• Provide high-quality professional development to support school wide leadership

• Focus on results and make data driven decisions

• Celebrate and share success • Be transparent with families and educators • Present easy to understand data • Utilize/employ a college and career focused

accountability system that puts students on a path to postsecondary success

These strategies were identified through collaborative meetings with stakeholders across the state and align with evidence-based research in education.


Page | 5

Priority: Funding will be prioritized for those applications based on the following:

FUNDING PRIORITY ONE

FUNDING PRIORITY TWO

FUNDING PRIORITY THREE

Receives FULL consideration School improvement efforts that include both items below:

1. Alignment with one or both NDE priorities: • School

leadership • Data driven

decision-making;

2. Partner with an external provider from the state approved list for 1003(a) The NDE School Improvement Partner List (SIPL)* (see Appendix B)

*Interventions meet ESSA evidence requirements (i.e., Strong, Moderate, or Promising)

Receives STRONG consideration School improvement efforts that include both items below:

1. Alignment with NDE priorities: • School leadership • Data driven

decision- making;

2. School improvement efforts that include: • Interventions, • Strategies, and • Activities

AND

Meet ESSA evidence requirements (i.e., Strong, Moderate, or Promising)

Receives MODERATE consideration School improvement efforts that meet the guideline below:

1. School improvement efforts that include: • Interventions, • Strategies, and • Activities

AND Meet ESSA evidence requirements (i.e., Strong, Moderate, or Promising)


Page | 6

C. ESSA EVIDENCE-BASED CRITERIA

All interventions, strategies, and activities must meet ESSA evidence-based requirements to receive 1003(a) funds by demonstrating a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes.

The ESSA Evidence Levels are:

STRONG EVIDENCE • Based on at least 1 well-designed and well-implemented experimental study

MODERATE EVIDENCE

• Based on at least 1 well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study

PROMISING EVIDENCE

• Based on at least 1 well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias

School and district leaders are strongly encouraged to refer to resources for guidance regarding how to identify evidence-based interventions (see Appendix C). Evidence-based is defined in ESEA in Sec. 8101(21), as shown below:

(21) EVIDENCE-BASED.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term ‘‘evidence-based’’, when used with respect to a State, local educational agency, or school activity, means an activity, strategy, or intervention that—

(i) demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other

relevant outcomes based on— (I) strong evidence from at least 1 well-designed and well-implemented experimental study; (II) moderate evidence from at least 1 well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study; or (III) promising evidence from at least 1 well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias; or

(ii) (I) demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality research findings or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes; and (II) includes ongoing efforts to examine the effects of such activity, strategy, or intervention.

(B) DEFINITION FOR SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES FUNDED UNDER THIS ACT.—When used with respect to interventions or improvement activities or strategies funded under section 1003, the


Page | 7

term ‘‘evidence-based’’ means a State, local educational agency, or school activity, strategy, or intervention that meets the requirements of subclause (I), (II), or (III) of subparagraph (A)(i).

D. 2017-2018 Timeline for 1003(a) Process

DATE(S) PROCESS

March 15, 2017 Application and guidance released by NDE

March 14-15, 2017

Vendor Showcase Event and Technical Assistance • March 14 from 1-5 pm in Reno at the Peppermill Resort Hotel

and Casino • March 15 from 1-5 pm in Las Vegas at Desert Pines High School

April 21, 2017

Applications for 1003(a) funding due to the Nevada Department of Education (NDE) on or before this date • NDE will do rolling reviews and engage in an iterative

conversation with districts/schools to design strong applications and plans.

• The SPP must be included in the application. Additional information about the SPP tool is provided below in the School Performance Plan section, as well as in the application.

April 21 - May 12, 2017 Application components reviewed by NDE staff

May 12, 2017 Applicants will be notified of award status

June – July 2017 Solicitation of feedback from districts and schools on 1003(a) pilot to inform process next year

September 14, 2017 – February 28, 2018

Mid-Year NDE cross-team on-site visits and desktop monitoring due dates for Fall semester, determined with each district and school

March 2018 2018 1003(a) application released (revised to incorporate feedback from 2017 pilot)

March 1 – June 29, 2018

End-of-Year NDE cross-team on-site and desktop monitoring due dates for Spring semester, determined with each district and school

June 30, 2018 Last date expenditures or budget encumbrances can be made against the subgrant award

September 30, 2018 Encumbrances expended fully

October 31, 2018

Last opportunity for submitting Request for Funds (RFF) • NDE recommends that RFFs be submitted quarterly, at a

minimum

December 15, 2018 Fiscal year 2018 Final Financial Report (FFR) due to NDE on or before this date


Page | 8

E. Application Preparation

Using the application framework, located in ePAGE address each section completely. Additional appendices or attachments are only allowed where indicated. Unsolicited attachments will not be reviewed. NDE reserves the right to require awardees to amend any and all applications before sub-grant funding is awarded. Applications must be received in the Office of School and Student Support ON OR BEFORE April 21, 2017, at 5:00 P.M. (PST). Rural District Consortium and Charter Consortium Rural districts have the option of forming a partnership and applying as a Rural District Consortium, and charter schools have the option of forming a partnership and applying as a Charter Consortium. NDE will consider any two or more partners as a consortium (i.e., at least two districts for the Rural District Consortium and at least two charter schools for the Charter Consortium). The consortium application will require a common purpose to support district and school goals for student achievement (e.g., selecting the same vendor for school leadership development). Upon request, NDE will facilitate the formation of the consortiums.

LEA’s applying under a Rural District Consortium or Charter Consortium must complete an application for each site.

F. Formatting Requirements • Font size must be no smaller than 12 point. • Include all required items in the specified order. • The application may be single spaced and may not exceed seven pages (tables

and appendices are not counted toward the seven-page maximum for the narrative).

G. Additional Support

The Office of Student and School Supports (OSSS) is committed to setting up LEAs and schools for success to significantly and rapidly improve school and student outcomes. If your team has any questions or need further clarification regarding this 1003(a) pilot process, please contact the NDE OSSS team (see Appendix D).


Page | 9

APPLICATION Section I: Application Narrative 1. A description of how 1003(a) funds will improve student achievement.

(5 pages maximum)

a. Provide a concise summary of the school needs and root causes based on your most current Needs Assessment and School Performance Plan (and Addendum, if using the old SPP template).

b. List goal(s) and provide a detailed description of your plan to reach these goals. c. If the plan is aligned to the NDE priorities for school improvement (i.e., school

leadership development and/or data informed decision-making), then clearly explain the alignment.

d. Explain how this funding will support school improvement efforts. Include a description of one or more evidence-based interventions (meeting the ESSA evidence level requirements of Strong, Moderate, or Promising) that will be implemented in each school the LEA proposes to serve. Clearly identify the ESSA evidence requirement for each intervention (so say whether it is Strong, Moderate, or Promising), and include in the Appendices either the research base to support that claim and/or the process for determining this (e.g., rigorous district vetted process to verify ESSA evidence requirements).

e. Identify the expected outcomes for students. f. Describe your mechanism for ongoing assessment of progress (i.e., setting

benchmarks, reviewing data, and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions, including a process for eliminating partnerships with consistently underperforming interventions over time). Schools should collaborate with the LEA.

g. Describe the capacity of the school leadership team to effectively implement school improvement interventions and explain the specific capacity that will be built through the implementation of this plan. Summarize how it will sustain continuous improvement.

2. A description of how the LEA will carry out its responsibilities to support

funded schools, planned priorities, and outcomes. Explain the following: (2 pages maximum)

a. Explain how different departments of the LEA will work collaboratively to fully

support each funded school to effectively implement this plan. b. Describe the LEA’s role for on-going assessment of progress (i.e., setting

benchmarks, reviewing data, and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions, including a process for eliminating partnerships with consistently underperforming interventions over time). List how often this support will take


Page | 10

place, the individuals responsible, and how changes and modifications may be considered and implemented to strengthen outcomes.

c. If the LEA and school chooses an external provider that is not on the state- approved School Improvement Partner List, describe the review process the LEA will use to recruit, screen, select, and evaluate the vendor and/or intervention. (See resources in Appendix C to help identify ESSA evidence-based interventions, strategies, and activities.)

d. Anticipating future funding sources for the 2017-2018 school year, describe how these funding sources will be utilized to accomplish school goals and significantly improve student outcomes in a timely fashion.

e. Copy the table below and complete. The Department recommends adding this as an Appendix so it does not interfere with the maximum seven-page requirement for the application.

DESCRIPTION YES NO Rural District Consortium Participation

Charter Consortium Participation Rising Star – Voluntary Student Performance Compact

Participation in NDE Vendor Showcase: Site level leadership team member(s)

Participation in NDE Vendor Showcase: LEA Senior Leadership

Participation in NDE Vendor Showcase: Title I and/or School Improvement team member(s)

Participation in NDE Vendor Showcase: Grant Department member(s)

Participation in NDE Vendor Showcase: Charter School Board Member(s)


Page | 11

Section II: Budget, Certification & Assurances PART A: BUDGET

A budget and budget narrative completed in ePAGE that indicates how the LEA will allocate school improvement funds for each identified school.

PART B: CERTIFICATION

Complete this section per directions in ePAGE.

PART C: ASSURANCES

Complete this section per directions in ePAGE.


Page | 12

APPLICATION EVALUATIONS A. Application Review Process

The Nevada Department of Education review panel may include the following:

• K-12 School Improvement expert(s) • K-12 School Leadership expert(s) • Content area specialist(s) • Grants Analyst(s) • Special Education expert(s) • English Learner expert(s) • Additional NDE reviewers from outside the Office of Student and School Supports • Regional and national experts from partner organizations

Reviewers will utilize the Scoring Guide below to make their determinations. The Department may review and fund Priority 1 applications first, Priority 2 applications next, and then Priority 3 applications. Refer to Table 2 in the 1003(a) Memo dated March 6, 2017, sent to District Superintendents, Title I and School Improvement Coordinators, and principals of schools eligible for 1003(a).


Page | 13

B. SCORING GUIDE

Date Reviewer Number Applicant Total Points

Awarded

Description Points

Possible Points Earned

Running Total

Summary of School Needs and Root Causes 10

Paired with state-approved School Improvement Partner 15

Alignment with one or both priorities: ☐ School Leadership Development ☐ Data Driven Decision-Making

20

Commitment to school improvement and measurable, timely, and attainable goals 10

Evidence-based interventions that meet the ESSA evidence requirements 15

Expected outcomes for students 5

Ongoing assessment of progress 5

Capacity and sustaining continuous improvement 10

LEA support for implementation, ongoing monitoring, and evaluation of intervention effectiveness

5

Strategic use of funding sources to support school goals and improve student outcomes 5

Budget Summary and Budget Narrative (ePAGE) * * *

Certification, Assurances, SPP, and SPP addendum (ePAGE) * * *

*Required, but not scored


Page | 14

BONUS POINTS

Description Points

Possible Points Earned

Running Total

NDE Vendor Showcase participation (2 points each) ☐ Site level leadership member(s) ☐ LEA / Senior Leadership ☐ Title I and/or School Improvement staff ☐ Grants Department staff ☐ Charter School Board Members

10

Consortium Participation (8 pts.) ☐ Rural ☐ Charter 8 Rising Star Voluntary Performance Compact (8 pts.) 8


Page | 15

C. Rubric

School: Reviewer Number: 1003(a) 2017-2018 APPLICATION RUBRIC

SCHOOL NEEDS AND ROOT CAUSES POINTS AWARDED

(10 Possible Points) GUIDING QUESTIONS: Does the application include a concise summary of school needs and root causes? Does school needs connect to and drive the selection of evidence-based interventions identified in the application? / 10

Exceeds Standard (8-10 Pts.) Meets Standard (4-7 Pts.) Below Standard (1-3 Pts.) POINTS AWARDED (10 POSSIBLE POINTS)

Summary of school’s needs is concise and clearly illustrates challenges to student/school success.

Summary is concise and thoroughly examines the relationships between root causes and student success indicators.

School needs clearly drive the selection of evidence-based interventions identified in the application.

Summary of school’s needs is concise and includes relevant detail related to student/school success.

Summary of the root causes is concise and provides some examination of student success indicators.

School needs drive the selection of evidence-based interventions identified in the application.

Summary of school’s needs is not concise or lacks relevant details.

Summary of the root causes is not concise and provides little or no examination of student success indicators.

Unclear if school needs drive the selection of evidence-based interventions identified in the application.

/ 10

REVIEWER COMMENTS: Intentionally left blank.


Page | 16

ALIGNMENT TO PRIORITIES IDENTIFIED IN NEVADA’S STRATEGIC PLAN AND ESSA PLAN POINTS AWARDED (35 Possible Points)

GUIDING QUESTIONS: Is the plan aligned to one or both of the priorities (i.e., school leadership and data informed decision-making) identified in Nevada’s Strategic Plan and ESSA Plan? The Plans were developed in collaboration with stakeholders from across the state.

/ 35

Uses SIPL (15 Pts.) Intentionally left blank. Intentionally left blank. Does not use SIPL

(0 Pts.)

POINTS AWARDED (15 POSSIBLE

POINTS) The plan demonstrates a strong commitment to school improvement, in alignment with state goals. The plan uses a vendor from the state-approved School Improvement Partner List.

Intentionally left blank. Intentionally left blank. The plan does not use a vendor from the state-approved School Improvement Partner List.

/ 15

Strong Alignment (17-20 Pts.)

Alignment (14-16 Pts.)

Promising Alignment (10-13 Pts.)

No Alignment (0 Pts.) POINTS AWARDED

(20 POSSIBLE POINTS)

Proposal is strongly aligned to both of the priorities (i.e., school leadership and data-driven decision making) and has a robust plan for building the capacity of site leaders and leveraging data to drive school improvement.

Proposal is strongly aligned to one of the priorities (i.e., school leadership or data-driven decision making) and has a robust plan for building the capacity of site leaders or leveraging data to drive school improvement.

Proposal is aligned to one or both of the priorities (i.e., school leadership and data-driven decision making) and has an adequate plan for building the capacity of site leaders and/or leveraging data to drive school improvement.

The proposal does not align with the priorities identified in Nevada’s Strategic Plan and ESSA Plan, which were developed in collaboration with stakeholders from across the state.

/ 20



Page | 17

PLAN COMPONENTS: GOALS, EVIDENCE-BASED INTERVENTIONS, AND STUDENT OUTCOMES POINTS AWARDED

(30 Possible Points) GUIDING QUESTIONS: Does the application demonstrate a strong commitment to school improvement and clearly define goals that are measurable, timely, and attainable? How will the school implement one or more evidence-based interventions? What are the expected outcomes for students?

/ 30


The stated goals are rigorous, measurable, timely, and attainable and there is a clear explanation of how the goals will be achieved. Demonstrates strong commitment to school improvement

The stated goals are rigorous, measurable, timely, and attainable and there is some explanation of how the goals will be achieved. Demonstrates commitment to school improvement

The stated goals are not rigorous, measurable, timely, and/or attainable or do not seem aligned to the school’s needs. Does not demonstrate strong commitment to school improvement

/ 10

Meets ESSA Evidence Requirements and Strong

Alignment to Goals (15 Pts.)

Meets ESSA Evidence Requirements and Alignment to Goals (10 Pts.) Below Standard (1-5 Pts.) POINTS AWARDED

(15 POSSIBLE POINTS)

The proposed interventions meet the ESSA evidence-based standards. Interventions are strongly aligned to school improvement goals.

The proposed interventions meet the ESSA evidence-based standards. Interventions are adequately aligned to school improvement goals.

The proposed interventions meet the ESSA evidence-based standards. No explanation or the explanation does not fully describe how funds will support evidence-based interventions.

/ 15

REVIEWER:

WHICH ESSA EVIDENCE LEVEL WAS MET? ☐ STRONG ☐ MODERATE ☐ PROMISING ☐ STANDARD NOT MET NOTE: As required by ESSA, the Department cannot fund any intervention, strategy, or activity that does not meet ESSA evidence requirements for Strong, Moderate, or Promising. Applications that include an intervention, strategy, or activity not meeting ESSA evidence requirements will be disqualified, and the review committee will not consider that application for funding.

Exceeds Standard (4-5 Pts.) Meets Standard (1-3 Pts.) Below Standard (0 Pts.) POINTS AWARDED (5 POSSIBLE POINTS)

Student outcome goals are ambitious, and expected student outcomes include appropriate metrics and annual benchmarks.

Student outcome goals are reasonable, and expected student outcomes include metrics and annual benchmarks.

Low expectations for outcome goals. Expected student outcomes are not included in application / 5



Page | 18

ONGOING ASSESSMENT, CAPACITY, AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT POINTS AWARDED

(15 Possible Points) GUIDING QUESTIONS: What is the plan for an ongoing assessment of the intervention, strategy, or activity? What is the school’s capacity to effectively implement the plan? How will you sustain continuous improvement? / 15


A thorough explanation of an ongoing assessment of progress is communicated, which includes plans to set benchmarks, review data, and evaluate effectiveness of interventions (and vendor partnerships).

An explanation of an ongoing assessment of progress is communicated, which includes some plans to set benchmarks, review data, and evaluate effectiveness of interventions (and vendor partnerships).

An explanation of an ongoing assessment of progress is not communicated, or lacks plans to set benchmarks, review data, and evaluate effectiveness of interventions (and vendor partnerships)

/ 5


School leadership team possesses strong capacity to effectively implement the plan and place the school on a trajectory of rapid school improvement, as demonstrated by a history of past effectiveness and a strong commitment to school improvement. There are thoughtful plans to use projected funds to make lasting changes that will sustain continuous improvement

School leadership team possesses capacity to implement the plan and demonstrates a commitment to school improvement. There are plans to use projected funds to make lasting changes that will sustain continuous improvement

Unclear whether school leadership team possesses the capacity to effectively implement the plan (e.g., comprised of novice leaders, leadership members may have a history of not meeting annual benchmarks, high turnover of leadership, etc.). There is no plan to ensure continuous improvement.

/ 10



Page | 19

LEA SUPPORT AND STRATEGIC USE OF FUNDING SOURCES POINTS AWARDED

(10 Possible Points) GUIDING QUESTIONS: How will the LEA support the school(s) with implementation, ongoing monitoring, and evaluation of intervention effectiveness (and vendor partnerships)? How will the LEA assist in strategically using anticipated funding sources to support school goals and improve student outcomes?

/ 10


Plan includes active and strong LEA participation in support of implementation, ongoing monitoring, and evaluation of intervention effectiveness (and vendor partnerships).

Plan includes participation of LEA in support of implementation, ongoing monitoring, and evaluation of intervention effectiveness (and vendor partnerships).

Plan includes little or no explanation of LEA role in support of implementation, ongoing monitoring, and evaluation of intervention effectiveness (and vendor partnerships).

/ 5


Plan includes an active partnership between the LEA and school in strategically using braided/blended funding sources to support school goals and significantly improve student outcomes.

Plan includes an explanation of how the LEA will assist in using anticipated funding sources to support school goals and improve student outcomes.

Plan has little or no explanation of how the LEA will assist in using anticipated funding sources to support school goals and improve student outcomes

/ 5



Page | 20

APPENDICES Appendix A: 2017 Eligible Schools List Appendix B: School Improvement Partner List (SIPL) Appendix C: Resources Appendix D: Contact Information for Additional Support


Page | 21

Appendix A

2017-2018 Eligible Schools List

District School Name

Focu

s

One

Sta

r

Prio

rity

Ris

ing

Star

HS

Gra

d.

Rat

e U

nder

67

%

Carson Pioneer High School X X X Churchill Numa Elementary School X Clark Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy SEC X Arturo Cambeiro Elementary School X X Burk Horizon SW Sunset High School X X X C P Squires Elementary School X Canyon Springs High School X X Chaparral High School X X Clyde C Cox Elementary School X Dean Petersen Elementary School X X Dell H Robison Middle School X Delta Academy High School X X Delta Academy Middle School X Desert Pines High School X X X Desert Rose High School X X X Doris M Reed Elementary School X Ed Von Tobel Middle School X Fay Galloway Elementary School X Global Community High School at Morris Hall X X H P Fitzgerald Elementary School X X Harriet Treem Elementary School X Harry Reid Elementary School X Imagine 100 Academy of Excellence Elementary

School X X Imagine 100 Academy of Excellence Middle School X Innovations International Charter Elementary

School X X Innovations International Charter High School X X Innovations International Charter Middle School X J D Smith Middle School X


Page | 22


Focu

s

One

Sta

r

Prio

rity

Ris

ing

Star

HS

Gra

d.

Rat

e U

nder

67

%

J Harold Brinely Middle School X Jerome Mack Middle School X X Jim Thorpe Elementary School X Kay Carl Elementary School X Laura Dearing Elementary School X Lois Craig Elementary School X X Manuel J Cortez Elementary School X Mario C & Joanne Monaco Middle School X X Matt Kelly Elementary School X X Mojave High School X X Odyssey Charter High School X X X Paradise Elementary School X Richard C. Priest Elementary School X X Ruben P Diaz Elementary School X Robert Lunt Elementary School X Robert O Gibson Middle School X Theron L Swainston Middle School X Tom Williams Elementary School X X Wendell P. Williams Elementary School X West Prep Secondary (Middle School) X X Western High School X X William E Orr Middle School X William K. Moore Elementary School X Zel & Mary Lowman Elementary School X X Elko Carlin High School X X Owyhee Elementary School X X Owyhee Middle School X X West Wendover Elementary School X West Wendover High School X X West Wendover Junior High School X Humboldt McDermitt Elementary School X Mineral Hawthorne Junior High School X Schurz Elementary School X Nye Amargosa Valley Elementary School X Floyd Elementary School X


Page | 23


Focu

s

One

Sta

r

Prio

rity

Ris

ing

Star

HS

Gra

d.

Rat

e U

nder

67

%

Gabbs Elementary School X Hafen Elementary School X Pathways High School X X X Round Mountain Elementary School X X Pershing Pershing Middle School X SPCSA Beacon Academy of Nevada X X Discovery Charter School X Nevada Connections Academy High School X X X Nevada Virtual Academy Elementary School X Silver State Charter School X Washoe Desert Heights Elementary School X X E Otis Vaughn Middle School X enCompass Academy Charter (aka Rainshadow

Community Charter High School) X X X

I Can Do Anything High School X X X Mitchell R. Elementary School X Natchez Elementary School X Proctor R Hug High School X Washoe Innovations Academy High School X White Pine McGill Elementary School X Steptoe Valley High School X White Pine Middle School X


Page | 24

Appendix B

School Improvement Program List (SIPL)

Service Provider

School Leadership

Development

Data Informed Decision-Making

Contact in RFQ Email Address

Academy of Urban School Leadership (AUSL) X X Tre Childress [email protected]

Achievement Network (ANet) X X Brett Shiel [email protected]

Blueprint Schools Network X Matthew Spengler [email protected]

Community Training and Assistance Center, Inc. (CTAC) X X William J.

Slotnik [email protected]

Criterion Educational LLC / National Institute for School Leadership (NISL)

X X Josh Tucker [email protected]

Pearson X X Karin Ekanger [email protected] New Classrooms Innovation Partners X Theresa Poprac [email protected]

New Leaders X Claudia Alfaro [email protected]

NYC Leadership Academy (NYCLA) X Mary Jo

Dunnington MDunnington@nycleadershipacade

my.org

Partners in School Innovation X X Derek Mitchell [email protected]

School Empowerment Network X Alexander Shub [email protected]

Social Policy Research Associates (SPR) X Sukey Leshnick [email protected]
















Page | 25

Service Provider

School Leadership

Development

Data Informed Decision-Making

Contact in RFQ Email Address

TNTP X Dottie Smith [email protected]

University of Virginia Darden/Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education (UVA)

X X William Robinson [email protected]




Page | 26

Appendix C The U.S. Department of Education issued non-regulatory guidance on Using Evidence to Strengthen Education Investments to help in school improvement planning. Evidence for ESSA is a website developed by the Center for Research and Reform in Education at Johns Hopkins University School of Education to help educators identify programs and practices that meet the ESSA evidence standards. The What Works Clearinghouse, developed by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), is a user-friendly database organized by topic and content area to locate studies on specific intervention types to meet ESSA standards. An LEA Guide for Identifying Evidence-Based Interventions for School Improvement, developed by the Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) Best Evidence Encyclopedia, developed by the Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education at Johns Hopkins University School of Education (not categorized in ESSA evidence tiers)

CCSSO has a list of resources on ESSA evidence-based practices under the School Supports and Interventions section on its website, supports for understanding evidence in ESSA.

Results First Clearinghouse Database, developed by the Pew Charitable Trusts (not categorized in ESSA evidence tiers; evaluates interventions as rated by eight national databases) RAND report on school leadership interventions under ESSA (categorized in ESSA evidence tiers)

Using Evidence to Create Next Generation High Schools, developed by the U.S. Department of Education (not categorized in ESSA evidence tiers) Roadmap to Evidence Based Reform for Low Graduation Rate High Schools, developed by the Every Student Graduates Center at Johns Hopkins University

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf

http://evidenceforessa.org/

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

http://fcrr.org/documents/essa/essa_guide_sea.pdf

http://fcrr.org/documents/essa/essa_guide_sea.pdf

http://www.bestevidence.org/

http://www.ccsso.org/ESSA



http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2014/09/results-first-clearinghouse-database

http://www.ccssoessaguide.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/down_rr-1550-1_12-5-2016.pdf

https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/high-school/using-evidence-create-next-gen-highschools.pdf

http://new.every1graduates.org/everyone-graduates-center-roadmap-to-evidence-based-reform-for-low-graduation-rate-high-schools/


Page | 27

Appendix D Please reach out to any of the following NDE OSSS team members for more information about the 1003(a) application process.

Technical Assistance on 1003(a)

Name Email Address Phone Number TeQuia Barrett [email protected] (775) 687-9218 Karen Gordon [email protected] (775) 687-9258 Maria Sauter [email protected] (775) 687-9248 Matthew Smith [email protected] (775) 697-9214 Susan Ulrey [email protected] (702) 668-4349 Colin Usher [email protected] (775) 687-2450 Michael Walker [email protected] (775) 687-9235

ePAGE Assistance on 1003(a)

Name Email Address Phone Number Allyson Kellogg [email protected] (775) 687-9148

Vendor Showcase

Name Email Address Phone Number Karen Gordon [email protected] (775) 687-9258 Tabetha Haley [email protected] (702) 668-4343 Maria Sauter [email protected] (775) 687-9248 Susan Ulrey [email protected] (702) 668-4349

Rural District Consortium and Charter Consortium

Name Email Address Phone Number Kevin Marie Laxalt [email protected] (775) 687-9261














request for application · request for application . school improvement 1003(a) grant. separate...

Documents